Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[TorontoDrew]

Cool video, showing the dome opening, the show and lightshow from the tower.

• Video Link

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It is a lot of cash but that's 20 years of bonus free marketing by sports and news channels, the city and transit authorities need to change signage around the core so i bet it works out in their favour.

They got a bargain.

If MLSE held out, they probably would've gotten 1 billion for the rights... and even that's probably still a bargain. One of the most popular arenas housing big name franchises in Canada's financial capital and highest populated area and a world-class city - you gotta pay if you wanna play with the big boys.

[Franco401]

So what happens to the big leaf inside the scoreboard? That was an Air Canada thing, was it not?

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Franco401

So what happens to the big leaf inside the scoreboard? That was an Air Canada thing, was it not?

Replaced with a Scotiabank logo? A Leafs logo? A big-ass dollar sign?

I'm sure the huge payout for naming rights will give investors more food for thought regarding a new stadium for Toronto. It's a nice way to recoup some of that stadium construction money.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Berklon

They got a bargain.

If MLSE held out, they probably would've gotten 1 billion for the rights... and even that's probably still a bargain. One of the most popular arenas housing big name franchises in Canada's financial capital and highest populated area and a world-class city - you gotta pay if you wanna play with the big boys.

It may be a bargain from some point of views but, it's still ridiculous. I wonder how many employees will be laid off while others have their workloads increased or will they just slash more benefits to pay for this new expenditure? I realize it sounds crazy but, this is exactly what happens with every big move. They are not going to dip into their profits. It may be the big stadium in the big Canadian city however, there isn't much room left for the banks to grow in Canada in the first place. See CIBC. They went from second to irrelevant in 20 years not just because of their piss poor customer satisfaction but, because they explored the least outside of Canada.

[king10]

didnt CIBC have a huge failed US expansion which played a role in its market cap falling

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by king10

didnt CIBC have a huge failed US expansion which played a role in its market cap falling

Yep, they took a big one on the chin with their poor investments in the US. That's what led to their decline. I know - I used to work for them.
However, they're still a very profitable company.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I wonder how many employees will be laid off while others have their workloads increased or will they just slash more benefits to pay for this new expenditure? I realize it sounds crazy but, this is exactly what happens with every big move. They are not going to dip into their profits.

You can say that about any company in many situations. Companies often spend a lot of money just to give their clients the optics of being successful - like building a new high-tech and opulent office. Or when companies making bad investments that cut into their profits. Job cuts often happen as a result.

If Scotiabank didn't spend the 800 million on this, they would've spend it elsewhere... whether it's a better or worse investment... and it probably would also result in layoffs.

[osmo]

MLSE will regret this. The "Air Canada Centre" became a normalized name and "ACC" flowed well. It because common place almost.. almost to the extent of Staples Place in LA. It had one of the most familiar names in North America pro sports arena names that are corporate. This continued condensation of names to handful of Canadian corps is frankly quite silly. Then ten Rogers (insert whatever) or Bell, etc has become silly.

Sometimes money isn't the end all and be all. Studies have shown naming rights do little to boost any corporate catchment in a market, and also the public is slow to gravitate away from normalized names. The United Centre, Staples Centre, Air Canada Centre all havs very strong localized and normalized names.

Scotiabank should be buying making rights in Florida or other closer Caribbean areas where they have a growinf footprint, why not the Florida hockey arena versus the ACC....

[Rollerstud98]

No I don't think Air Canada Centre is a strong normalized name. Skydome yes, Saddledome yes but Air Canada Centre was always corporate naming rights through and through. If they had changed the Maple Leafs Gardens to Air Canada Centre you know it would have always remained Maple Leaf Gardens. Through the time of the Saddledome having corporate naming rights all and even when it was Olympic Saddledome, people just called it the Saddledome, or dome.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by osmo

MLSE will regret this. The "Air Canada Centre" became a normalized name and "ACC" flowed well. It because common place almost.. almost to the extent of Staples Place in LA. It had one of the most familiar names in North America pro sports arena names that are corporate.

Studies have shown naming rights do little to boost any corporate catchment in a market, and also the public is slow to gravitate away from normalized names.

Based on what you stated, I'm not sure how MLSE will wind up regretting it. It sounds more like Scotiabank will be the ones regretting it if people still stick to the ACC name. MLSE will still have 800 mill regardless of what people decide to call it.

[HomerSPC]

Originally Posted by Franco401

So what happens to the big leaf inside the scoreboard? That was an Air Canada thing, was it not?

I'm pretty sure it's a Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment thing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by HomerSPC

I'm pretty sure it's a Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment thing.

Also happens to be the Air Canada logo.

[Nathan]

It wouldn't be shocking to me if there is a bit of a backlash with this deal. Canadians in general are very docile regarding increasing fees; however, the next time Scotiabank ups its fees, you may have people remembering this massive spend and potentially connecting a few dots, whether they are directly related or not. The average deal may not have done much, but with how big this one is and how it's touted as one of the largest ever in North America may come back to bite them a little.

[king10]

I highly doubt MLSE regrets this decision. They'll be laughing all the way to the (Scotia) Bank.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by Franco401

So what happens to the big leaf inside the scoreboard? That was an Air Canada thing, was it not?

Originally Posted by HomerSPC

I'm pretty sure it's a Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment thing.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Also happens to be the Air Canada logo.

The Leaf inside the scoreboard is a MLSE/Maple Leaf/Raptors thing. It lights up Blue for the Leafs and Red for the Raptors. I would not expect that will change.

The Leaf under the scoreboard is (obviously) the Air Canada logo. That will certainly be replaced.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

No I don't think Air Canada Centre is a strong normalized name. Skydome yes, Saddledome yes but Air Canada Centre was always corporate naming rights through and through. If they had changed the Maple Leafs Gardens to Air Canada Centre you know it would have always remained Maple Leaf Gardens. Through the time of the Saddledome having corporate naming rights all and even when it was Olympic Saddledome, people just called it the Saddledome, or dome.

Staples Center in LA is normalized and it is a corporate name, many folks forget it is corporate actually. Staples was ambitious in going in early for naming rights and has become a mainstay on the building.

20 years of history and the name becomes normalized as it appears in print, on highlights, and is spoken in conversation the same way. Team owners and corporate brands are too short sighted to see this, you have to be in it for the long haul to get any benefits.

Also corporations need to get over themselves and use subsidiary or acronyms for these types of branding, also the need to be are of branding fit to not sound stupid (Smoothie King Arena). Scotiabank would of been fine as "Scotia Centre", "Scotia Arena" it just flows better and isn't clunky to say. People see the logo and best Scots they already know. Air Canada Centre flowed when you said it, mostly because "Canada" acted as a buffer that didn't make it sound strange. Also the shortened form of ACC was great, one of the better abbreviations in pro sports facilities. To the point you could put it on way finding signs with just the arena logo and folks could figure it out.

Also in the age of text messages the abbreviations and shorthands do work and come in handy. Nobody is going to text "meet me at Scotiabank Centre", folks will still message he normalized short hand "I'm at th ACC, meet me gate 5". For SkyDome it is different as everyone knows Rogers owns the team some folks will say "im at SkyDome", or "I'm at Rogers" or ; BMO Field is slowly getting normalized, most folks just call it "BMO", you simply soccer and TFC within the statement you're making and people know what you're talking about.

Overall thought the state of Canada arenas is silly. 6 now names after 3 Corps, I have no idea what suits think this is a good idea. These naming rights do little to actually boost presence for Corps and studies back that up. In saying that the Corps should treat it as a long term investment for community and market exposure with intent of becoming culturally embedded and normalized which IMO is priceless. Staples is culturally embedded in Los Angeles because of the arena name and that has now turned out to be priceless; that all has more value then how many times the name gets plastered on a arena flyover from a blimp in TV.

I'm sure MLSE likes it's money but $20 million a year is peanuts to them. The suits should be more aware to culture and quirks, it's hard to put that into a spreadsheet though so they don't like to do down that road. Nobody is crying about the name change, but I promise if the Leafs won and the Raptors won titles in recent years then a name change would of been met with greater backlash. There does have to be winning memories tied to the building which is why partly people lost their shit over SkyDome changing its name.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by osmo

I'm sure MLSE likes it's money but $20 million a year is peanuts to them.

It's 40 mill a year.

The way I see it... it's just a name. It doesn't change the venue, the team playing in it or the sport. Everything is corporate now. If someone has a problem with this - then they should also have a problem with ads on the boards at hockey arenas, or on football jerseys and football fields.

[esquire]

I'm a bit surprised that MLSE is going with "arena" since the risk of that kind of noun is that people will just shorthand it as "meet me at the arena" (or coliseum, or forum). You can't really do that with "place" or "centre".

But speaking of LA, I always thought they had one of the better corporate names on an older venue... the Great Western Forum. When I was a kid I thought it was a geographic reference (like Pacific Coliseum in Van), I didn't realize it was the name of a bank. Corporate names were still uncommon then, of course. But this one was a good fit.


Source: wikipedia

[osmo]

Good point on the Great Western Forum, growing up I had no idea it was a corporate name also. If I recall it was just called "The Forum" when it was built?

Let's not forget Wrigley Field which was named for Wrigley gum, when they (or him) were owners of the team. Corporate names are nothing new in buildings but attention needs to be paid to length of time and quality of the brand that goes after naming rights (The Brick Field is terrible, Hard Rock Stadium... Terrible)

The old corporations named after families always sound best. Next is a corporate name with some sort of geography reference in it like "Great Western" or "Air Canada", but overall what makes a name stick is time and or winning. The United Center opened in 1994 I think but has become normalized from all those Bulls championships.

I remember when American Airlines bought the name for Miami after Dallas and I thought that was silly - having two arenas with the same corporate brand slapped on with just Arena and Center tacked on. Leagues should of stepped in to stop such silly stuff - Canada has taken it to another level though.

[esquire]

^ I agree, if a venue has to have a corporate name, an actual family name is best followed by appropriate geographic references. Beyond that I'd say that having a corporation with a significant connection to the market is preferable... having super-generic names like "Colisée Pepsi" or "Rogers Place" when there is no particular corporate connection to a city beyond just selling the product there sounds a little goofy.

(And yes, it was just "The Forum" or until 1988 when GW bought the naming rights.)